Accountability and Privilege in an Era of The Blameless

It's not my fault - 

- is the rallying cry of The Blameless -

But -

- is it true - ?

Era of The Blameless

We are in an era of The Blameless.

An era of individuals - who - on the basis of - names, genders, races - nations, religions, melanin - labels, lens, isms - etc. - eschew all responsibility and all accountability - solely on the basis of - names and names alone, genders and genders alone, races and races alone - nations and nations alone, religions and religions alone, melanin and melanin alone - labels and labels alone, lens and lens alone, isms and isms alone - etc.

Period.

However -

- such disavowal of responsibility and of accountability is impossible - without overt and tacit, explicit and implicit, permission. From us. From society. From the judicial process, the legislative process, the executive process.

Hence -

- we - have granted every individual the unassailable right - on the basis of nothing more than labels, lens, isms, etc. - to wholeheartedly renounce every responsibility and every accountability for their actions, for their choices. Especially - if and when - such actions, such choices, precede actions of others, choices of others, that result in actual and perceived, material and immaterial - harm. Such that, others - on the basis of nothing more than labels, lens, isms, etc. - shoulder the entire burden of responsibility and the entire burden of accountability, whether such burden is just or not.

But -

- this isn't new.

In fact -

- such excusals and exemptions from responsibilities and accountabilities, are as old as time immemorial. Such that, there is no label, no lens, no ism, etc., that hasn't appropriated such excusals and such exemptions from responsibilities and accountabilities, in order to excuse and exempt a specific individual or a class of individuals of responsibility and accountability, on the basis of labels and labels alone, lens and lens alone, isms and isms alone, etc.

However -

- to the extent that our covenant with society expects impartiality and sans (sans labels, sans lens, sans isms), with respect to the judicial process, the legislative process, the executive process - it behooves us to examine these excusals and these exemptions, for patterns of systemic bias, that rob all citizens of society, of impartiality and sans. Especially, if and when, such systemic bias, actuates rampant inequality, preferential access, flagrant injustice, in the name of labels, lens, isms, etc.

The Blameless

Who are The Blameless?

You. Me. Us. Them. One. All.

Via ceaseless campaigns to right the wrong of labels, lens, isms, etc. - we validate, uplift, advance - our selves and each other - on the basis of nothing more than labels, lens, isms, etc. Such that exceptions - to names, genders, races - nations, religions, melanin - labels, lens, isms - etc. - confer exemptions - to impartiality and sans - vis a vis the judicial process, the legislative process, the executive process.

As if. Names. Genders. Races. Nations. Religions. Melanin. Labels. Lens. Isms. Etc. - constitutionally bestow specific individuals - preferential status - of inviolable authenticity - sacrosanct innocence - legitimate blamelessness - with respect to intersections with other human beings -

- who - by hapless virtue of - unexceptional - Names. Genders. Races. Nations. Religions. Melanin. Labels. Lens. Isms. Etc. - are thereupon viciously and zealously divested of their right to impartiality and sans. To be subsequently held wholly responsible and wholly accountable for intersections with other human beings - as if - specific human beings - on the basis of nothing more than - Names. Genders. Races. Nations. Religions. Melanin. Labels. Lens. Isms. Etc. - possess no responsibility, no accountability - for actions, for choices - whatsoever.

Is this - just - ?

Via self-superior agendas to right the wrong of victim blaming, victim shaming, victim invalidating, etc. - we blindly and passionately lavish specific individuals - with preferential status - of inviolable authenticity - sacrosanct innocence - legitimate blamelessness - on the basis of - nothing more than labels, lens isms, etc.

- which - we fanatically defend with self-righteous vigor and vehement sanctimony.

As if. This. Is. Just.

Notwithstanding -

- that it's not rocket science to recognize that such absence of impartiality and sans - in the judicial process, the legislative process, the executive process - tacitly invites - specific individuals - to misuse, abuse, manipulate, exploit - preferential status for ulterior motive and gain -

(- which is evident across every judicial process, every legislative process, every executive process - that is blatantly biased - vis a vis label, lens, ism, etc. - the world over - not to mention - across time immemorial -)

- which certainly belies - the irresponsibly indulgent accordance of inviolable authenticity - sacrosanct innocence - legitimate blamelessness - on the basis of labels and labels alone, lens and lens alone, isms and isms alone, etc.

Verily -

- once - such preferential status was employed for the exclusive benefit of one - label, lens, ism, etc. -

- now - such status is employed for the privileged benefit of an other, different - label, lens ism, etc. -

Begging the question -

- if this exclusivity, this privilege - was unjust and unfair - then -

- how is this exclusivity, this privilege - just and fair - now - ?

For no rationalization, no justification - validates - the inherent injustice - of judicial processes, legislative processes, executive processes - that deprive impartiality and sans, from one individual vis a vis one label, lens, ism, etc. -

- in order to excuse and exempt an other, specific individual vis a vis an other, specific label, lens ism, etc. - from judicial processes, legislative processes, executive processes - that we expect to be impartial and sans, fair and just, for all citizens of society, regardless of label, lens, ism, etc.

Accountability and Privilege

By our elevation of The Blameless -

- The Blamed are not privileged -

- The Blameless are.

For The Blameless possess that unequivocal privilege of blind conferral of preferential status -

- of zealous accordance of inviolable authenticity, sacrosanct innocence, legitimate blamelessness -

- of fanatical excusals and exemptions from responsibilities and accountabilities -

- in the name of righting the wrong of labels, lens, isms, etc. - in the name of righting the wrong of victim blaming, victim shaming, victim invalidating, etc. -

- by virtue of - nothing more than - names and names alone, genders and genders alone, races and races alone - nations and nations alone, religions and religions alone, melanin and melanin alone - labels and labels alone, lens and lens alone, isms and isms alone - etc.

Is this not - the very definition of privilege - ?

The right - not - to be held responsible -

The right - not - to be held accountable -

- by any court of law, by any legislative chamber, by any executive office -

- by virtue of - labels, lens, isms, etc. - ?

The right to be exempt - from impartiality -

The right to be excused - from sans -

The right to demand justice and fairness - by suppressing the inalienable rights of others to impartiality and sans -

- by virtue of - names, genders, races - nations, religions, melanin - labels, lens, isms - etc. - ?

Does this not - ensure - the very rampant inequality, the very preferential access, the very flagrant injustice - that the rightings of wrongs - ostensibly remedies and resolves - ?

Yet -

- The Blameless blamelessly continue to -

- vilify The Blamed - as the privileged - on the basis of - names, genders, races - nations, religions, melanin - labels, lens, isms, etc. - verily - sexism, racism, nationism, religionism, classism, socioeconomic statusism, sexual orientationism, political affiliationism, etc. -

- whether such vilification is just or not -

- demand The Blamed - be held wholly responsible and wholly accountable for the entire burden of responsibility and the entire burden of accountability - of intersections with others - whose labels, lens, isms, etc. gift irrefutable blamelessness -

- whether such demand is just or not -

-  far be it - for The Blameless - who possess agency - act - choose - intersect - without puppet strings attached to their minds, their hearts, their souls, their bodies - to be responsible for and accountable for - their agency - their acts - their choices - their intersections - sans privilege - sans excusals and exemptions - sans labels, lens, isms, etc.

Alas -

- far be it - for The Blameless and The Blamed - to be aequum et mutuus - when the indomitable power of privilege - is -

- so potent - so irresistible - so self serving - so rewarding -

- so validated - so lauded - among the virtuous - among the noble - by advocates, champions, crusaders, demagogues -

- not to mention, professional liars across media (social, news, entertainment, advertising) - as well as, experts and pundits and shills - for the advocacy and the championship and the crusade for the validation and the elevation and the advancement of labels, lens, isms, etc.

Verily -

- who can blame The Blameless - for relentlessly and mercilessly appropriating the invisible and the unearned advantages and entitlements of - privilege - ?

See also Cradling Victims and Hanging Villains (tvfs)

More

The notion of privilege - is one that has been appropriated by specific labels, lens, isms, etc. - in order to confer upon specific labels, lens, isms, etc. - invisible and unearned advantages and entitlements - by way of ostensibly eliminating privileges purportedly enjoyed by others - by virtue of other, specific labels, lens, isms, etc.

Regardless of the inherent injustice and inequality - of appropriating privilege on the basis of labels and labels alone, lens and lens alone, isms and isms alone, etc.

Regardless of the inherent injustice and inequality - of assuming - that a specific individual or a class of individuals - on the basis of nothing more than labels, lens, isms, etc. - experience invisible and unearned advantages and entitlements.

Regardless. Of. This. Very. Exercise. Of the very definition. Of. Ism.

Sexism. Racism. Nationism. Religionism. Classism. (Socioeconomic statusism.) Sexual orientationism. Political affiliationism. Etc.

The assumption - that a specific individual or a class of individuals - by virtue of nothing more - than possession of specific names, genders, races - specific nations, religions, melanin - specific labels, lens, isms, etc. - do or do not - experience invisible and unearned advantages and entitlements - or - do or do not - experience invisible and unearned disadvantages and disentitlements -

- is an assumption that relies wholly on our willingness to arbitrarily and meaninglessly reduce our selves and each other, to nothing more than our labels, lens, isms, etc.

How. Is. This. Just?

Moreover - if - such ideology, such dogma - permeates and pervades - informs and influences - our judicial system, our legislative system, our executive system -

- how exactly - are our systems - impartial and sans - ?

By definition - such ideology, such dogma - is the very opposite - of impartial and sans.

Needless to say - intersections of harm - actual and perceived, material and immaterial - are serious matters indeed.

Begging the question -

Do not such serious matters - that concern all citizens of society - demand - a judicial process, a legislative process, an executive process - that is - above all else - impartial and sans - ?

Do not our aequum and our mutuus - supercede - any and all - invisible and unearned advantages and entitlements - on the basis of labels, lens, isms, etc. - ?

Do we not expect - justice - to be blind - to all names, genders, races - all nations, religions, melanin - all labels, lens, isms, etc. - ?

For justice - without impartiality and without sans - is an injustice and a tyranny -

- that sanctions and that condones - the reckless and heinous conferral of preferential status - of inviolable authenticity - of sacrosanct innocence - of legitimate blamelessness - on individuals and classes of individuals - on the basis of nothing more than - labels and labels alone, lens and lens alone, isms and isms alone, etc. -

- such that - the honor and the right - of a judicial process, a legislative process, an executive process - that is sans privilege - sans excusals and exemptions - sans labels, lens, isms, etc. - is denied all citizens of society.

How. Is. Inequality. And. Injustice. And. Tyranny. And. Absolutism. - In the name of labels, lens, isms, etc. - Ever. Just?

- M

My Name Is Sui Qua Alius

Continued from Angle Is Everything (tvfs)

Addendum

I.

Where everyone is named Sue Anne - name means nothing -

- likewise - where everyone is named Mohammed - name means nothing  -

Yet - where Sue Anne is the exception - where Mohammed is the exception -

- these names become vehicles for - and justifications for - actuations of isms - on the basis of assumptions about who possesses such names and what they who possess such names are - vis a vis labels, lens, isms -

- such that, where Sue Anne is the exception, Sue Anne is subject to ostensibly 'harmless' misunderstanding and bewilderingly rampant injustice, vis a vis labels, lens, isms - as the norm - likewise - where Mohammed is the exception, Mohammed is subject to the same -

While - 

- where Sue Anne is the norm, Sue Anne experiences extraordinary leniency, compassion, mercy - as the norm - even when Sue Anne breaks her covenant with society and patently breaches the trust of society - likewise - where Mohammed is the norm, Mohammed experiences the same -


II.

Which begs the question -

- why name oneself 'Sue Anne' - in a society where Mohammed is the norm - ?

- why name oneself 'Mohammed' - in a society where Sue Anne is the norm - ?

- if not - at least - in some measure - to deliberately set oneself in a position of opposition - to the norms of the society in which one lives and works and loves - ?

Regardless of every society's noble aspiration of mutuus -

- societies have failed to achieve, much less, honor such aspirations, across time immemorial -

Therefore -

- to act in willful disregard of actual societal naming norms, for example - even if - ostensibly - in concordance with society's noble aspirations of mutuus - certainly begs the question -

- and -

- certainly places some measure of responsibility on those who willfully disregard actual societal naming norms - for choices that result in consequences - detrimental to those whose names expose a deliberate position of opposition to societal norms -


III.

While the case of Sue Anne and Mohammed - conflate multiple labels, lens, isms -

- the harm of labels, lens, isms - vis a vis names, genders, races - nations, religions, melanin - is most potent - with respect to access and justice - across actualities -

- such that - names - because they are potent carriers of labels - intersect with lens and isms - such that - names - as vehicles for labels - mediate - access and justice - across actualities -

- such that when Sue Anne and L'Kesha report allegations of sexual assaults and domestic abuses committed upon them, for example - they are treated differently than when Mohammed and Jesús report the same - on the basis of nothing more - than gender and gender alone -

- likewise - when Sue Anne and L'Kesha contest allegations of perpetrating sexual assaults and perpetrating domestic abuses, for example - they are treated differently than when Mohammed and Jesús contest the same - on the basis of nothing more - than gender and gender alone -

Yet -

- we fail to acknowledge that this difference across actualities of access and justice - is nothing more - than blatant sexism - institutionalized and codified - in our 'fair' and 'impartial' judicial processes -

- notwithstanding - the role of media (social, news, entertainment, advertising) as a vehicle to deliberately, maliciously, and irresponsibly circumvent any process that is ostensibly 'fair' and 'impartial' - in order to perpetuate, for example, rampant sexism, via overt and explicit bias on behalf of one gender over another - on the basis of nothing more - than gender and gender alone -

However -

- when laws around the world, treat citizens differently, in coherence with systems of belief that differ from our own - we decry the inherent injustice of laws that treat citizens differently, when such differences are mediated by nothing more, than gender and gender alone -

- notwithstanding - nation and nation alone - religion and religion alone - etc. -

- only - when such 'injustice' differs from the 'injustice' - we condone - in our own societies -


IV.

As for access -

- there is no difference across actualities of access between - Sue Anne, L'Kesha, Mohammed, Jesús - in societies of mutuus -

- because -

- there are no inherent differences between - Sue Anne, L'Kesha, Mohammed, Jesús -

But -

- Sue Anne, L'Kesha, Mohammed, Jesús - do experience differences across actualities of access - on the basis of our rationalizations - our justifications - our labels, lens, isms - which differ -

- such that - within societies where L'Kesha and Jesús are the norm - L'Kesha and Jesús are unlikely to be subject to different access on the basis of name and name alone -

- likewise - within societies where L'Kesha and Jesús are the exception - L'Kesha and Jesús are likely to be subject to different access on the basis of nothing more - than name and name alone -


V.

However -

- when L'Kesha and Jesús are the exception - and L'Kesha and Jesús are subsequently subject to different access and different justice -

- it can be tempting to generalize this difference across actualities of access and justice - as a permanent condition of existence - that exists as a direct result of isms - everywhere -

But -

- this condition only exists - as the norm - when and where - L'Kesha and Jesús are the exception -

- because -

- when and where - L'Kesha and Jesús are the norm - L'Kesha and Jesús are not subject to different access and different justice - as the norm -

Hence -

- any agenda -

- that remedies differences across actualities of access and justice - to which, for example, L'Kesha and Jesús are subject - when and where they are the exception - vis a vis labels, lens, isms - by validating, uplifting, advancing - L'Kesha and Jesús, for example - vis a vis labels, lens, isms -

- is an agenda that is inherently unjust -

Verily -

- any agenda - including and especially agendas ostensibly for access and justice -

- that legitimizes and promotes - labels, lens, isms - pursuant to advocacy for equality and impartiality - is an agenda that actuates inequality and preferential access, not to mention, injustice -


VI.

Of course -

- names themselves are powerless -

Verily -

- we imbue names with power -

- when we perceive names, through lens we assume are valid - when we blindly believe assumptions, vis a vis labels names impart - when we treat each other differently, on the basis of isms evoked by names -

Such that -

- we rationalize and justify our assumptions - on the basis of labels, lens, isms -

- whether - vis a vis - names, genders races - nations, religions, melanin - etc. -

- across actualities - including access and justice -

- without interaction (i.e. applications, questionnaires, etc.) and with interaction (i.e. actualities of access and justice, etc.) -

- regardless - of the truth -

- that - names, genders, races - nations, religions, melanin - etc. -

- are utterly meaningless -


VII.

Insofar -

- as every society expresses the noble aspiration of mutuus -

- we can do our part -

- we can stop - accepting labels, lens, isms - among our selves and each other - one and all -

- we can stop - endorsing labels, lens, isms - across social media, entertainment, news media, advertising - all media -

- we can stop - advocating labels, lens isms - across public discourse, public policy, private discourse, private policy - codified in the judicial process, the legislative process, the executive process - sanctified by international discourse, international policy, international advocacy -

- we can stop - advancing injustice -

- we can stop - actuating inequality -

But -

- they - cannot alter societal norms that rationalize, justify, sanctify, nobilify, legitimize labels, lens, isms - without us -

- there is no justice - there is no equality - without us - doing our part -

Because -

- every we and every us - who are not doing our part -

- tacitly - advance injustice and actuate inequality -

- by the willful and deliberate refusal to advance justice for all and actuate equality for all -


VIII.

Verily -

- one's own status - as an exception - within a society whose norms differ - vis a vis one's own - name, gender, race - nation, religion, melanin - etc. -

- does not - in any way whatsoever - confer an exemption -

- from access and justice, on the basis of fairness and impartiality, sans name, gender, race, nation, religion, melanin, etc. -

- much less -

- an exemption from any and every society's aspiration of mutuus -

For -

- despite society's failure to achieve mutuus -

- aspirations of mutuus - supercede institutionalizations of bias - semper et perpetuum -

- on the basis of the most simple aphorism -

- two wrongs never make a right -

Indeed -

- no solution to society's failure to achieve or honor - mutuus -

- can ever be the legalization, codification, institutionalization of - bias - vis a vis labels, lens, isms -

- for such legalization, codification, institutionalization of - isms - engages ceaseless cycles of remediations of - bias - via endless pendulum sways from inequality and injustice to inequality and injustice -

- ad infinitum -

Note

sui qua alius is -

- simply - a latin variant of the phrase I oft employ - one and all -

- specifically and literally - sui is self - alius is other -

- qua is the qua of 'human qua human' - which is oft translated as 'human as human' - but means far more - i.e. human beyond ego, human as all humans, human of other interest beyond individual and specific human interest, human as that human that has achieved actualization or enlightenment, human behind the veil of ignorance (so to speak), human metaphorically (as in ideal, as opposed to literal or actual), human beyond label, etc. -

- thus - altogether - the title of this post is -

- my name is self beyond self, self as other, self of all, self who is one and all - 

- I Am One, I Am All -

More

Insofar -

- as labels, lens, isms - pervade our society -

- what can we do - ?

If two wrongs don't make a right - how do we right - the wrong - of labels, lens, isms - ?

For one -

- we do not - validate, uplift, advance - labels, lens, isms - !

Nor do we -

- legalize, codify, institutionalize - bias - vis a vis labels, lens, isms - !

Instead -

- we legalize, codify, institutionalize - impartiality -

- we legalize, codify, institutionalize - sans - (sans labels, sans lens, sans isms) -

- we legalize, codify, institutionalize - what we have forgotten is essential to judicial processes that are fair and just - 

- leniency, compassion, mercy -

- aequum et mutuus -

For we are all - sui qua alius - and judicial processes that are fair and just - are judicial processes that treat one and all as - sui qua alius -

Likewise -

- we advance, actuate, advocate - impartiality -

- we advance, actuate, advocate - sans - (sans labels, sans lens, sans isms) -

- we advance, actuate, advocate - what we have forgotten is essential to actualities of access that are fair and just -

- benevolence, charity, generosity -

- aequum et mutuus -

For we are all - sui qua alius - and actualities of access that are fair and just - are actualities of access that treat one and all as - sui qua alius -

Indeed -

- my name is sui qua alius -

- what is yours - ?

- M

Angle Is Everything

The thing about everything -

- that we hold to be fast and true -

- is -

Angle Is Everything

I:

Q: Who are you?

A: What exactly are you asking - by asking - who are you - ?

Q: For a start, I'm asking you to tell me your name. 

A: Does my name matter - ? Does my name - impart anything meaningful - ?

Q: Names are harmless! Besides, without your name, how do I know who you are - ?

A: What if my name is Sue Anne or L'kesha - ? Or - Mohammed or Jesús - ? Are these names - harmless - ? Moreover - do these names - tell you anything meaningful - about who I am - ?

What if - you're asking my name - on an application for a job - as a tailor or a pilot or a personal assistant or a chief operational officer - ?

Are these names harmless - ? Moreover - do these names - tell you anything meaningful - about who I am - ?

Verily - if names engage our assumptions - about who possesses such names and what they who possess such names are - vis a vis - labels, lens, isms -

- is any name - harmless - ? - much less - meaningful - ?


II:

Q: Well. If you won't tell me your name, what are you?

A: What exactly are you asking - by asking - what are you - ?

Q: I suppose, I'm asking you to tell me your gender and your race.

A: Does my gender and my race - matter - ? Do either or both - impart anything meaningful - ?

Q: Yes, they matter! Your gender and your race tell me a lot about you! Besides, without either, how do I know what you are - ?

A: What if - you're asking my gender - on an application to join a sports team or a questionnaire for a giveaway - Or - you're asking my race - on an application to attend a school - or a questionnaire for a product review -

Does my gender - matter - ? Does my race - matter - ? Do either or both - impart anything meaningful - that must be known - in order to impartially consider my application and my questionnaire - for either or both - ?

Moreover - how do my gender and my race - tell you a lot about me - ?

- by what you assume - to be true - on the basis of nothing more than gender and race - ? verily - vis a vis isms on the basis of nothing more than gender and race - which is the very definition of sexism and racism - ?


III.

A: Who am I - ?

My father named me in honor of the fifth pillar of Islam. My mother named me in honor of the season of light in the northern hemisphere, during which the southern hemisphere celebrates the birth of Christ. My dearest named me in honor of the rite of mercy and forgiveness and freedom and liberty, in the Land of Israel, and the most sacred month of the calendar of Islam.

But. My legal name. Is the name that was appointed me by the people who bought me from the people who sold me.

A: What am I - ?

I am no gender. For gender is a social construct that limits who I am and what I can be. By nothing more. Than arbitrary classifications of morphological expressions of 'sex chromosomes'.

I am no race. For race is a social construct that limits who I am and what I can be. By nothing more. Than compositions of ancestors via arbitrary boundaries of nations, religions, and/or melanin.

A: Knowing - my name, my gender, my race - my nation, my religion, my melanin - tells you nothing about me -

Instead - my name, my gender, my race - my nation, my religion, my melanin - engages your isms - such that - on the basis of nothing more than labels - you avow knowledge of me that is based on assumptions and assumptions alone -


IV.

Q: But your name does tell me about you - ! In fact - it tells me a lot about you - !

A: Does it - ?

Q: Well - yes - !

A: Does my name tell you - what I believe - ? Does my name tell you - my personal credo - ? Does my name tell you - the virtues I live by - ? Does my name tell you - that which I hold dear and dearest - ? Does my name tell you - what matters to me - ? Does my name tell you - who I love - ?

Q: Well - no - But your name tells me your nations and your religions - That's something - isn't it - ?

A: Is it - ? What do - the nations of my parents - have to do with me - ? What do - the religions of my parents - have to do with me - ?

- for is not the merit of me - me -

- not the nations of my forebearers - nor my forebearers' religions - ?


V:

Q: But - without names - without genders and races - how do I know - who and what - people are - ?

A: Ah - therein flourishes the insidious lie that everything we hold to be true - vis a vis labels - is true - that is - therein flourishes the very foundation - of isms -

Indeed - we have become so blindly accustomed - to the veracity and the validity - of names, genders, races - nations, religions, melanin - verily labels of every kind that categorize all kind -

- that we steadfastly refuse to acknowledge - the arbitrariness and the meaninglessness - of labels - despite our own experiences of arbitrary judgment and meaningless categorization vis a vis labels -

- that we vehemently disavow the unequivocal fact that labels - can and do, have and will - harm - despite our own experiences of harm vis a vis isms -

A: Haven't you - at one time or another - been subject to assumptions that have been erroneously arbitrary and harmful - on the basis of your name, your gender, your race - ? your nation, your religion, your melanin - ?

Q: Well - yes - But - not often -

A: So - because you attest to your experience of an infrequency of error and harm directed towards you -

- which - to be honest - may be true - via deliberate and intentional avoidance of experiences of error and harm - vis a vis labels - or - may not be true - as error and harm are not always visible or overtly perceived - vis a vis isms -

- this - is the basis for the legitimacy of your request for my name, my gender, my race - ? my nation, my religion, my melanin - ?

Q: Yes -


VI:

A: Furthermore - your request for my name, my gender, my race - my nation, my religion, my melanin - is legitimate and harmless - ? valid and necessary - ? meaningful and informative - ?

- because - you - by some miracle of adamantine resolution - are immune from the engagement of assumptions - on the basis of labels - vis a vis your isms - ?

Yet -

- have we not already established - that - my name, my gender, my race - my nation, my religion, my melanin - impart nothing - as to who and what - I am - ?

Indeed -

- I believe in veritas -

- my personal credo is honestum -

- the virtue I live by is lux -

- that which I hold dear and dearest is liber -

- what matters to me is fidelis -

- who I love is all kind -

Does - my name, my gender, my race - my nation, my religion, my melanin -

- engage assumptions, you hold fast and true - that cohere with my truths, as I have avowed them, herein - ?

Or - do your assumptions - cohere with your truths - ?

- lies - fueled by your isms - rationalized and justified, sanctified and nobilified - by assumptions of ignorance legitimized by hubris - ?

~ Fin ~

More

Every time -

- we reduce our selves and each other - to names, genders, races - nations, religions, melanin -

- we engage isms and actuate misanthropy -

For -

- it is no less sexist - to classify ourselves into homogeneous groups on the basis of gender -

- than for some of us - to make assumptions about others of us - on the basis of gender and gender alone - whereby we justify the different treatment of some of us by others of us - on the basis of sexism -

- moreover - it is no less racist - to classify ourselves into homogeneous groups on the basis of race -

- than for some of us - to make assumptions about others of us - on the basis of race and race alone - whereby we justify the different treatment of some of us by others of us - on the basis of racism -

Verily - 

- the legitimization of sexism and racism - on the grounds of validating a gender and validating a race - uplifting a gender and uplifting a race - advancing a gender and advancing a race - is no less sexist and racist -

- than villifying a gender and villifying a race - on the basis of gender and gender alone and race and race alone - which is the very definition of sexism and racism -

Moreover -

- the institutionalization and promotion - of policies - that benefit some of us and only some of us - on the basis of gender and gender alone and race and race alone - is categorically and unequivocally - sexist and racist -

- likewise - the classification of us - on the basis of gender and race - is categorically and unequivocally sexist and racist -

For -

- the institutionalization of these arbitrary categories - imbue these categories with the power of fabricated and manufactured - validity and veracity -

- verily - the power of absolute truth - 

- that we know with certitude - to be false and untrue - by our own experiences and by the experiences of all of us -

Yet - still -

- we persist - in engaging sexist and racist - agendas - in championing sexist and racist - causes -

- throughout our society - in public discourse, in public policy - in private discourse, in private policy - with irresponsible and flagrant disregard towards our complicit perpetuation of sexism and racism -

Until we stop -

- our overt and tacit acceptance, endorsement, advocacy of labels, lens, isms -

- our names, our genders, our races, etc. - our nations, our religions, our melanin, etc. - on applications, on questionnaires, etc. - across political campaigns, across media campaigns, etc. - 

- will continue to propagandize harm on the basis of labels and labels alone and assumptions and assumptions alone -

- with nary a qualm for the truth of our mutuus -

- M

Addendum to this post is @ My Name Is Sui Qua Alius (tvfs)

See also Unravelling the Fictions of Isms (tvfs)